Verum, Intelligendo, quod Intemporate Sapientia.

Idiocracy, Reefer Logic, and the Gospel of Other People’s Money

One of the things I have learned in my brief time on this planet is that knee-jerk post-mortems are often wrong. I find that blame and recrimination are too often part of the process, and it tends to cloud thinking and obscure what is important. The post-mortems of the 2012 elections have been no exception. And while I would dismiss many of them outright because of the desire to point fingers and lay blame, I have to confess the one that surprised me was the one offered by my brother from a different mother and father, Rosetta.

Here in my own state of Washington, we had gay “marriage” and pot legalization on the ballot this year, both of which passed, either on the strength of what I call “reefer logic” or warm and fuzzy lies, but both offer insights into what happened nationwide.

First, the gay marriage referendum, R-74. In 2008, our legislature passed the State Registered Domestic Partnership Act which allowed people to form officially sanctioned relationships with a member of the same or opposite sex, conferring all the same benefits that are conferred by marriage, except for the name. This meant that same sex-couples would be eligible for “spousal” benefits offered by employers, inheritance rights, and community property rights, as well as all other benefits conferred by being in a state-recognized relationship. But that wasn’t good enough. And after waging a campaign that cynically stated that redefining the term marriage would grant same-sex couples the right to hospital visitation (a lie, as thank to HIPPA, even “straight: couples need to execute Medical Powers of Attorney to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses, and to have a free and full exchange of health information with their spouse’s medical doctors.), and as a “civil rights issue”. It became a cause celebre of sorts to change a centuries-old specific legal definition, and the fact that it was based on a blatant lie, and the diminishing of a genuine “civil rights” issues, didn’t detract at all from the allure that this measure held for proponents. No doubt it made those who voted on it feel good, and it was certainly easier than thinking. I’m sure that some of you are asking “So they redefined marriage. So what?” Well, it may seem like a small thing, and an easy thing, and not worthy of the effort to stop. Except that for every change we make to the bedrock of the law, robs what remains of a little of its meaning. Do this enough, and then it gets easier to look at the law and say “It doesn’t make sense, so let’s just chuck the whole thing.” I know that the possibility seems remote, and as long as you are only surveying from each incremental change, this only seems more certain to be the case. But think of it as being in a boat on the ocean. Off to the left, you see a rocky shore. There are no oars in the boat, but you have an anchor, which keeps you from being pounded against those rocks, no matter how high the waves get. Now imagine a fog bank that conceals the shore, and the rocks. And that fog bank lingers for days. Maybe you hear the waves braking on the rocks, but aren’t able to interpret what you hear. Maybe you can’t hear it at all. And then you wake up one day, and decide that it is pointless to have that anchor. Now you are heading for those rocks, and you don’t even know it. And that’s where we find ourselves today, as we collectively pat ourselves on the back and feel good about our enlightened view on the matter.

Our other ballot measure was one to legalize possession and use of up to an ounce of marijuana by persons 21 years old or older in this state, which plays into the first suggestion made by my friend Rosetta to help Republican’s be successful in future elections, which was “Legalize Marijuana”. Both he and the proponents here in Washington share the idea that this isn’t a serious crime anyway, and therefore, it doesn’t make sense to be enforcing it. Rosie’s point is that we can empty a lot of prisons; the argument pre-election here in Washington was that it would free up law enforcement resources to prosecute “serious” or violent crimes. I remain unconvinced. Rosetta also shares the belief with advocates here that this will be a revenue opportunity for the state, because a legal trade can have the snot taxed out of it. And finally, he glosses over the idea of collateral damage as being minimal, and something that should be the interest and crusade of private killjoys, rather than the government. Yesterday morning, I heard the Seattle City Attorney being interviewed on the radio while I was driving to work. He employed what I call “reefer logic” in talking about the reasons for legalizing marijuana, and what happens next now that Washington has said “Yes.”

Among the rationales he described was that it is just “sound policy”. He stated that the “War on Drugs” has been a crashing failure, which has cost trillions of dollars, and therefore, it just makes sense to end that war for those reasons. At this point, I was shouting “GREAT! Since that is the measure of “sound” policy, I expect that we will also end the “War on Poverty” tomorrow, since the government has also spent trillions of dollars with little or no objective success to show for it!” (I know, I know. That’s been about creating dependency, not fighting it, so there is no reason to expect it to be measured by the same standard.) He then expressed his belief that the Federal government would resist this, and that it would end up in Federal court, which he welcomed because it would allow for an “adult conversation” about the concept of federalism, which is only proper as “it concerns the decisions made by the people of two sovereign states”. At this point, I could not believe what I was hearing. Abortion was not an issue for a discussion about federalism? Welfare was not an issue for a discussion about federalism? Not Obamacare? Not environmental regulations. But Pot…Pot was a hill to die on with concern for Federalism.

Frankly, I think the idea that this was going to free up lots of resources for law enforcement isn’t necessarily so, but the bigger issue is that of collateral damage. I am concerned that the idea of tax revenue being a primary driver of legalization. There is a moral component that doesn’t appear to have been considered, that being government sanctioning a vice not out of a belief that the individual has a right to self-destruct without interference, but because it can make money from it. I can hear you. dear reader, as you say “But we tax alcohol, and we tax cigarettes. Why is this different?” the short answer is that those taxes are incidental to their legalization, and not the reason for it. It is a fine distinction, but I have a hard time believing that government should be more concerned about what’s in it for them, rather than the effect on the individuals and the society in general. Then there is the matter of feeding the beast…the fact that government almost NEVER uses these kind of tax revenues for stated purposes, and instead uses them to find more ways to regulate things that are none of their business.

Then there is the question of impairment. We all know a functional alcoholic, or those who drink to excess too much. But the collateral damage to society has become a bigger issue than in past decades. Driving drunk is frowned upon, and prosecuted severely because of the potential of harm to others. In many ways, though it is still not often characterized as such, we no longer think of drinking to excess as being harmful to only the person imbibing. And yet we still allow people to characterize pot as a “victimless crime”. While the majority of studies appear to have been published by NORML or similar groups, I think most people have at least empirical experience that would call into question the issue of impairment with marijuana use. Even more laughable is the notion that by taxing and regulating, we will be able to keep it out of the hands of young people. Ask police departments about the resources they spend addressing the purchase and sale of alcohol with teens, or dealing with the effects of underage drinking. And many of us have had the experience of asking adults to buy alcohol for us. Now consider the fact that a gram of pot is much easier to conceal than a six-pack of beer.

The second idea for new success is simplification of legal immigration. I actually like the idea. And the way that my friend presents is unobjectionable, because it is still based on an exchange…you have to meet the requirements, and you still have to pass the test. If there is a point that I would like to see shored up, it would be to manage the skills of those we allow in under this program. While there is something to be said for filling jobs that qualify as unskilled labor, there is also something to be said for future generations learning the value of work. No one should have their first job be their career. Flipping burgers and working retail will teach the value of labor, the pride of making your own paycheck, and the importance of being on time and having a good attitude. And given the current unemployment rate of teenagers, the current high rates should not be exacerbated with a policy that allows them to be constantly undercut in the labor market.

The third idea proposed by Rosetta is a $50,000 payment to anyone of verifiable slave heritage. My response? Absolutely NOT. The reasons are simple. First, this won’t be the end, matter how much you try to tie the payment of the cash to the condition that they finally lose the attitude that they are somehow owed something because of a practice that was ended 155 or so years ago in the greatest shedding of American blood in conflict ever. The idea of reparations is one that is a remedy to the person who actually suffered the harm, which is why, although still offensive, the reparations made to the Japanese American survivors of the World War II internment could at least be defended on a quasi legal basis. An argument could be made that the Great Society and the War of Poverty has damaged blacks and especially black families, with a policy of deliberate infantilization, and dependency on Uncle Sugar. The part where the analysis breaks down is the fact that the federal government hasn’t been doing this to just blacks, but has been waging this without regard to skin color. The other component would be that the victim should recognize that they are a victim, and as the election proved, the victims don’t see themselves as victims, and instead think that they can and should be “punishing” others who don’t share their servitude, and who recognize that a shiny shackle is still a shackle. Finally, the idea is the kind of irresponsible spending by government that we as conservatives are supposed to oppose. This is not about “justice”, and cannot seriously be considered as such. It is a cynical attempt to buy an attitude that is contrary to that which is fostered by decades of government spending, and continues the idea that peace or more abstractly, salvation, can be found if you spend enough of other people’s money. It’s an idea that has brought this country to the brink of disaster and ruin, and it is hubris to think that we can use the same tactic and get a positive result.

The fourth idea posed was that contraception and abortion are for the beneficiary to pay for. I can agree with half that concept. Contraception can and should be the province of those who use it. The inherent mistake was accepting the notion that abortion is valid as contraception, and it is ok because it is inherently a “private” act. Although the legal rationale set forth in the Roe decision was dubious at the time (the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply, because…well, because it doesn’t, so don’t ask again) the truth is that the science has advanced even further. It only underscores the hypocrisy of a society that can shed buckets of tears for whales being killed and forests being clear-cut, and not seem to give a second thought to the slaughter of thousands of children in the womb annually, without sparing a thought to the fact that each one of those children is a separate being, with its own organs and DNA, and the same government that has been founded on the principle of an unalienable right to life sanctions this ongoing genocide without any due process, or even thought given to it. This happens daily, in very profitable centers set up to perform them, and human beings who have committed no offense other than being conceived are killed with less due process than we demand be afforded to child rapists and cop killers. This is a shameful stain on our national character, and should be no more encouraged than giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Finally, my friend suggests that these ideas are not damaging to the ideas of libertarianism or republicanism. While that may be true for the principles of libertarianism, I think the question is a bit more difficult when applied to republicanism. Largely because I think people couldn’t tell you what the republican party stands for. And that is reflected in the candidates we have had since Reagan. While I believe that many of the party’s standard bearers since Ronaldus Magnus have been good men, I don’t think that they have done a great job clearly stating clear principles that offer powerful explanation of why conservatism is a better alternative to what the left offers. Instead, we have relied on candidates who were chosen because they wouldn’t allow themselves to be pinned to an ideology, because they couldn’t or wouldn’t stand on principles because they couldn’t persuade others why they were right. It doesn’t make sense to lose because you didn’t have the courage to be yourself. And telling yourself that your win is more important than a choice between clear ideas is a recipe for failure.

But this is only one part of the puzzle. We are faced with an electorate that would rather have Idiocracy, and that has decided that bread and circuses are better than personal responsibility and the right to determine their own destiny. It’s hard to fight the idea that free stuff is better than freedom. It’s hard to fight Greed’s retarded sister, Envy, and the idea that successful people are responsible for your lack of success, and should therefore be punished is a seductive one. If you think that a candidate can or should overcome these factors, will combatting a negligent and complicit media, then you aren’t seeking a candidate, you are seeking a savior.

Circumstances can and will contribute to the recognition that what was chosen on Tuesday was the sad and tired ideas that have failed and made things worse for people who have had to live with them whenever they have been tried. And it sucks that those of us who already knew this will have to suffer with those who still have to learn. But we share in this failure because we refused to demand something better from those who would be our standard-bearer. And we share in this because we each have to be the standard-bearer for conservatism ourselves. We have 70 years of indoctrination and sloppy thinking to counter and bypass, because the obvious is anything but for people who have been taught to look past it.

15 Responses

I was actually going to comment on Rosetta’s post but comments have been closed there and it’s probably for the best since I’m not welcome there anyway.

While I don’t like Rosetta’s tone … I seldom like Conservative’s tone, and I don’t necessarily agree with all of his solutions (I have mixed feelings about legal pot and I suspect reparations would cause more harm than good), I applaud his acceptance of the fact that Republicans MUST change if they are to win Presidential elections. While I am no fan of George W. Bush, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that he ran in 2000 on the platform of “compassionate conservatism”. Americans are for the most part a compassionate people. Campaigns that marginalize women, Hispanics, blacks and gays will turn off a huge subset of America.

So, a qualified BRAVO to Rosetta for recognizing that sometimes failure points to a need for change, not simply the stupidity of those who say you failed.

Not to end this on a sour note, since I think it’s always worthwhile to highlight those few areas where we agree:

You didn’t ask but I’ll share anyway why I have mixed feelings about pot legalization. On the one hand, I don’t like the fact that we are filling prisons with nonviolent pot smokers. It makes no sense. On the other hand, I heard someone the other day bragging that pot NEVER killed anyone. I don’t think you need to be a rocket scientist to know that is pure foolishness. Some stoned dude somewhere has rammed his car into an innocent person’s vehicle driving under the influence. I haven’t done any research into it, but I also find it hard to believe that inhaling marijuana does zero lung damage. Last but not least, and I know this makes me sound like I never got past 1970, I do believe pot can be a “gateway drug”. I do believe there are folks for whom the pot high no longer cuts it, and they move on to more serious stuff.

Whether society will be the better for legalized pot, I cannot say for sure. But we ought to give serous thought to the social and medical ramifications before we succumb to legislative reefer madness.

I was responding to the advice about the need to change. Your diagnostic abilities re: the Republican Party aren’t very good, and you and I both know that. What’s more, is I don’t get the Left’s fascination with stroking its collective chin and offering its unsolicited advice on the matter to begin with. It is as foolish as asking muslims their opinions on free speech or seeking child care advice from an abortionist.

As for pot legalization, it is difficult to make an informed decision because most of the “studies” published are less than scientific, or are published by people who have a vested interest in the outcome.

I can’t speak from personal experience, but I have had plenty of occaisions to witness people who have been stoned. I’m not convinced that impairment isn’t serious enough for them to be a threat to others. And as you observe, there is no way that someone sucks smoke into their lungs on a regular basis, and doesn’t suffer harm by doing so. However, I notice that you glossed over the point of taxation being one of the primary reason for doing this. Do you not have an issue with the state deciding to be complicit in vice so it can get paid?

If I believed the driving force behind legalization was tax revenue then I would agree with you 100%. I don’t believe that. I think folks in favor of legalization want the government out of the business of controlling how they (ab)use their bodies. The tax thing is just a side benefit. Do you really think Bill Maher really gives a flying fig about taxes? He just wants to get stoned risk free.

The tobacco lobby in this country was once very strong. It would be interesting to see how this debate might change if Altria (parent of Phillip Morris) got in the biz of manufacturing joints. Big business in America has a way of changing the debate.

My brother! As it should be, you took my lamer points to the woodshed and properly spanked them. I still contend that our side needs to make some changes on certain policies but not because of election results. Because it’s time to do so, it’s dictated by reality and we can do so as conservatives.

However cooler heads like yours better weathered the storm of this election and now that some time has passed, I’m pretty much moving back into the “stick to your guns” camp.

This election wasn’t lost on policy. It was lost on the cult of personality. Would John Kerry have won this election against Romney? Not in a million years.

It was Bill Kristol today throwing his panties on the stage of higher taxes that slapped me out of my funk. That was shameful to me.

My post was half-serious and half-rant but his giving up the ghost on a taxes made me reconsider the lesson of this election.

The proper response to it is, although too late for some of us, to quietly reflect on what went wrong and then correct course.

I always laugh at the Democrats because whenever they lose, it’s always because of the “messaging” and not the “message”.

The impulse on our side to immediately blame the message is equally as dumb.

Rutherford, I believe you to be a worthy opponent despite your affection for small, domesticated farm animals. Conservatives will be back to fight again so at least don’t rape the good horses. You’ll need them in 2014.

LOL Rosetta I’ll take that as a compliment. Even though you’re rethinking even the serious parts of your post, I still give you credit for going there. Yes I know Kristol’s response is blasphemy but I think it is borne of the knowledge, contrary to your theory, that this was more than just the cult of Obama personality. Obama lost ground since 2008 with hard core progressives. The rose colored glasses were off. There was just no reason on Earth for the GOP not to be able to make a strong case for a change. I say it’s the way they went about it.

I don’t know about 2014 but the Dem’s better gird their loins for a nasty fight in 2016. That’s when the big guns that SHOULD have come out this year will come out full force … Rubio, Christie, J-Bush, Ryan (perhaps), Jindal. It would be foolish for Dem’s to underestimate this roster four years from now. But Rosetta, please notice something about the roster … not a nutjob, loon or phony among them. 😉

P.S. I know several will call me a liar, but if Christie runs in 2016 it may be the first time I vote for a Republican.

Rutherford, Kristol’s a tactician. For him, its all about the political calculus. The local radio guy here was interviewing him this morning, and he made it clear that he’d be happy to swap a tax increase on “the rich” now for some real horse trading on the tax rates and changes to the tax code, and how he thinks its the smart play since it avoids taxmaggeddon for the middle class, which will be blamed on the GOP if they don’t give on this issue.

He then went on to say that if the Dems don’t deal on the other issues, then he thinks THAT’S the hill to die on.

If all you care about is the win, then its a smart play. If principle actually matters, then it’s wrong.

And principle matters.

*******

And in 2016, no to Christie. He’s a squish on the Second Amendment, and his spit-swapping photo op with the Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers when Sandy’s breath subsided was the dick move of dick moves.

Don’t even get me started on Jeb Bush. No, no, no, a thousand times no.

Why do I get this sinking feeling that you actually LIKED the clown car that got trotted out in 2011/2012?

You mentioned the 2nd amendment … did you have similar dislike for Christie when he was blasting Obama pre-Sandy? Did his 2nd amendment stance negate that at the time?

So from my list, that leaves Rubio and Jindal and Ryan. Ryan already proved this year that unless he somehow rebukes his own take on abortion, he’s finished as POTUS material. That leaves Rubio and Jindal. Do you like either of them? I suspect Rubio is softer on immigration than you’d like and Jindal was just recently quoted as saying the GOP needs to stop being the stupid party.

You mentioned the 2nd amendment … did you have similar dislike for Christie when he was blasting Obama pre-Sandy? Did his 2nd amendment stance negate that at the time?

Rutherford, as a Presidential candidate, Christie makes a fine governor of New Jersey. I like his committment to bringing public spending under control, and his willingness to go toe-to-toe with public sector unions and reminding them that they have had it backwards with regard to who is working for who for far too long. But that is pretty much where my admiration for him ends. The more I listened to him flesh out his other stances, the more I came to realize that he still typically defaults to the wrong inclinations. And then when he started to announce his thoughts on the Second Amendment, that was all I needed to know. That said, I don’t breathlessly wait for his every pronouncement, so I’m not sure what he said that was blasting Obama so much that it caught your attention. I don’t expect that it would change my opinion.

So from my list, that leaves Rubio and Jindal and Ryan. Ryan already proved this year that unless he somehow rebukes his own take on abortion, he’s finished as POTUS material. That leaves Rubio and Jindal. Do you like either of them? I suspect Rubio is softer on immigration than you’d like and Jindal was just recently quoted as saying the GOP needs to stop being the stupid party.

I like both Rubio and Jindal. I’ve heard Rubio talk about a need for immigration reform, but I haven’t yet heard him really flesh out his ideas. I’d like to hear more on his thoughts about it.

As for Jindal, I read his remarks, and I didn’t take them the way that you did. I also think that based on the fact that Big Eduminication has conditioned the electorate to accept and digest sound bites and slogans, he is presenting a larger challenge than I think he takes stock of in that speech. It also doesn’t take note of the fact that we also have to fight a complicit media that will deliberately edit remarks for consumption that put what was said in a completely different light. I would agree that we should stop dumbing things down, and in that respect, Ryan has been refreshing, although the reaction to him I think is a classic illustration of my point about what Jindal didn’t address. And if you weren’t joining in on society’s collective navel gazing, you might be dimly aware that abortion is the REAL civil rights issue of this generation.

"I want these “…and I’m a communist” dumbshits to have a Coming to Jesus moment that they will NEVER forget. I want them staring in to the eyes of every American who knows that government has very specifically designated roles, and are fed-up to their eyeballs with the overeaching, paternalistic, oppressive monster that the Left (with help from the establishment Right) set loose on us. I want those greedy, lazy, control-freaky bastards quaking with fear when they are met with an electorate determined to wrest their liberties, including the right to fail, back from a government that would enslave us all to the service of a soul-killing mediocrity. I want their asses so horrifiyingly and memorably whipped that the mere memory will cow a century’s worth of socialist/communist/marxist acoyltes into an ashamed silence."
________________________________
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution, we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean."--Justice Curtis, Dissent, Dred Scott v. Sanford

"The very idea of power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. All obstructions to the execution of its laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberations and actions of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency."- George Washington

The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.
-Plato

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
-Plato